October 24, 2008

This New Yorker blogger, George Packer, names me and slams me, but doesn't link, so there's no way for readers to see the context. The context is here.

I didn't "push[] the plastic-device story," I genuinely thought I saw something, something that wasn't a "story" anywhere else -- I took my own freeze-frame photograph. Within 5 minutes, I looked more closely in the surrounding frames and decided it wasn't there and said so. That's all my post was. So what the hell is George Packer talking about?

Shame on you, George Packer! That is truly sleazy! You are so eager to push your little theory that you have lost sight of ethics and fairness. Packer writes:

The problem isn’t lack of education—it’s that of a self-isolating political subculture gone rancid.

Look in a mirror, man. Look in a damn mirror, loser.

ADDED: What Packer seems to have done is to have adopted another blogger's summary of what a lot of bloggers, including me, have done over the course of the election season. That other blogger paid no attention to my year of balanced blogging, under an explicit vow of cruel neutrality. And Packer, I bet, did not perform an independent check to figure out what my blog is really like. It is this failure, even more than the failure to link to the particular post he purported to describe, that is really a failure of ethics. What absurd irony that he behaved like this to reach the conclusion that the other side of the blogophere is "self-isolating" and "rancid"!

Packer, I demand an abject confession of your self-isolation and rancidity.

Yeah, I sent him a few uh, observations about that piece myself. I also couldn't help mentioning Sullivan's insistence that we all have a right to see medical proof of Trig's parentage, as evidence that his stance was a touch myopic (although perhaps I should have said rancid.)

There it is. The reflection does look like something at first glance. Packer has obviously been a visitor to your site in the past and has a real hard-on for you. What he wrote was meant to be destructive. Very personal hard-on, just by virtue of choosing to name you over 1000's of other bloggers. Damn.

Would you have been happier if he said that you "originated" that story?

You seem to be acknowledging that you went out of your way to put this "story" into the ether because nobody else had done so. Sounds a bit like pushing, but whatever. You seem to prefer taking credit for inventing it or originating it or creating it.

I saw your original post saying Obama wore an earpiece. I don't get updates to posts in my feeds so until this post, I didn't know you'd changed your mind about it. It's possible Packer noted your original post in a feed and not the updated version. It may not have happened that way, but it's plausible. I'm not sure it would be reasonable to expect every blogger to return repeatedly to posts being referenced to make sure they still say the same thing as when they were first published.

Packer's audience are reading the New Yorker, so we already know that they're intellectually lazy and susceptible to suggestion and confirmation bias, so do you think they're going to care enough to go looking for the context?

I used to buy the New Yorker to have it in the apt, make me look hip. But I'm over that now.

Swift, I get the point that you linked and that he linked to you, but as a matter of the most basic blogger ethics, he needed to put a link where he made an assertion about what I said, particularly since what he said was completely distorted. He libeled me in The New Yorker, one of the most important magazines. The fact that the link is on your little blog is insufficient. You know the readers aren't going to find their way back to my site via that circuitous route.

And you got it wrong too, so if you have any decency, you would fix your twisted post. You are not concerned with fairness and accuracy. You should see the ridiculous irony of your post. YOU are doing the very thing you are supposedly shedding light on. Hypocrite!

I just wrote him a short note, and told him to visit the site and portray the Professor accurately. I told him that his piece was grotesquely unfair and slanderous, as the Professor is not a radical right-winger.

Swift, I haven't read your post other than the sentence I emailed you about. Read my email. I said that Packer libeled me when he said I "pushed" a story after I posted a photograph of a freeze-frame and then in 5 minutes said it wasn't what it had originally looked like to me. That is not pushing. It is not true. And he went on to slime me and insult me in The New Yorker. That is harmful and shameful and I'm extremely angry about it. As for what you do on your blog, I don't bother to read it, and I didn't call it libel. I can't be bothered to read it, frankly. I think you're boring, but you do apparently appeal to people in your "self-isolating political subculture gone rancid." Good for you. Asshole.

That's what I don't get- Packer's thing over there is supposedly a blog (look at the URL, it's in the site's "blog" directory!) yet he can't be bothered to link to the bloggers he slimes, only to the slimy, anonymous "Jon Swift" and of course Andrew "Glutes" Sullivan. And naturally there aren't any comments allowed, because why would we let the rabble beshit the walls of the hallowed, important "New Yorker" magazine blog section?!

It's Packer's blog at the New Yorker website, not really in The New Yorker. I read it every week, and almost never look at the website. I'll listen to the Out Loud podcast if they're talking about background on a good article.

How did you manage to read only one sentence of my post, Ms. Althouse, while skipping all the other words? And which sentence was that? Your emails contain no mention of a specific sentence. I did not email you a specific sentence, only a link, which you must have clicked on because I did not describe the piece in my email and no one had linked to it when I emailed you as a courtesy, not even Mr. Packer. And I'm not sure why you feel the need to claim that you haven't read my piece and then proceed to characterize it and me. Wouldn't that be unfair and in fact what you accused Mr. Packer of doing?

Granted, you quickly realized your error, with the help of your commenters, and then you quickly took corrective action: shrinking the picture and larding the post up with all sorts of additional observations about similar conspiracy theories. But none of that changes the fact that your initial post was clearly and unambiguously an attempt to push the plastic-device theory.

Packer wrote a really great non partisan piece a while back about the Iraq war and profiled members of the military. He's very respected and I'm surprised he did this.

Blogging can be a stream of thoughts and ideas. We work things out as we go along and share whatever it is we see at the time, eventually coming to conclusions, as you did about the earpiece. Packer doesn't get this, and I bet he never read your whole post on the earpiece.

It was worth a shot, Professor. Sometimes you gotta go with a dicey notion, and see if it sticks. You never know...you might be vindicated in 20 years.

Personally, I think all the candidates must be wired on drugs to live the non-stop lives they have. Good luck finding out anything about that.

Found a piece Packer wrote in March 2003 about Bush bringing democracy to Iraq. He didn't think much of it, but he wrote this:

"It's an audacious idea [of Bush's, bringing democracy to Iraq], and part of its appeal lies in the audacity. It shoves history out of a deep hole. To the idea's strongest backers, status-quo caution toward the sick, dangerous Middle East is contemptible, almost unbearable. ''You have to start somewhere,'' says Danielle Pletka, a vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group. ''There are always a million excuses not to do something like this.'' Who wouldn't choose amputation over gangrene? If we have the will and imagination, the thinking goes, we can strike one great blow at terrorism, tyranny, underdevelopment and the region's hardest, saddest problem."

It is weird how he includes Althouse in his attack piece. Why include Althouse with those who accused Obama of having a gay lover or being a drug user?

Althouse just speculated (and then retracted) that he *might* have worn a ear piece during a single debate. Doesn't seem to be at the same level at all.

And of course, Packer was just as upset about the Bush "pocket bulge" speculation in 2000 /sarcasm off/

BTW, I stopped reading the New Yorker years ago. Their politics were always rancid, and their political and cultural writings have declined - even faster than the rest of the culture. I had no idea who Packer was, until I read this post.

"Granted, you quickly realized your error, with the help of your commenters, and then you quickly took corrective action: shrinking the picture and larding the post up with all sorts of additional observations about similar conspiracy theories. But none of that changes the fact that your initial post was clearly and unambiguously an attempt to push the plastic-device theory."

OMG! She changed the size of the image appearing in her post and deviously hid the larger sized original on her public Flickr photostream which she ingeniously hid behind a link that says "Enlarge". I mean, who could figure out such a complicated code word?! That Ann Althouse! Always hiding things!

Thank you Warrior of Truth Jack for saving that screenshot! Otherwise we might have to click through a link to see the image in its original size!

"One New Yorker writer who shared (Harold) Ross's profound concern for accuracy and exactness was essayist E.B. White. In a three-page letter written in June 1945, Ross challenged White's use of the word "compost," concluding his remarks with this statement of editorial principles.

It's all right for people to say that we are too fussy, that ten or twenty slightly ungrammatical sentences don't matter, but if (from where I sit) I break down on that the magazine would break down all along the line. If we find something wrong, it should be fixed, I claim, even if it is minute. We run Newsbreaks picking on everybody's frailties, and I think it's up to us to get out as clean a book, as to fact and grammar, as we can.

It's pretty simple to envision. Just picture this. Packer is at a cocktail party, the grievance committee is in attendance, they have had a few drinks and start recounting the alleged slurs against Sen. Obama.

Althouse's name probably comes up as a "truther" type and someone adds did you know she likes wine and voted for Bush in 2004?

Oh Professor, you've seen the hatred spewed from both sides now, and you should know that even questioning 'The One' is grounds for public humiliation. These are the people you will be validating when you pull the lever for Obama in two weeks' time.

I think you know that your commenters from the right would welcome you back into the McCain camp with open arms...it appears the same can not be said for the left. You committed crimes against the almighty O, you will have to do penance.

Obviously this guy doesn't read your blog and he doesn't care about "ethics" or "fairness". He classifies anyone who ever criticized Obama as a frothing, hateful wingnut to discourage others from doing so in the future.

First of all, her post seemed much more sensational and dramatic when she used the larger image. Surely you're aware of that, even if you won't admit it. Ann herself admits as much by saying, later, "I made the picture smaller, so you won't think I'm trying to make trouble..." This is Ann's explicit recognition of the powerful impact made by the larger picture.

Second, no one is really going to hold this against Ann. It's a minor mistake. Basically, my theory is that Ann thought she saw something and wanted to be the first to post about it. So she got sloppy, and is paying a very small price in the form of some mockery. It's no big deal, and it certainly isn't going to incense people like some of Ann's previous stunts.

Third: Congratulations, Palladian, for being one who didn't fall for the "mutilated McCain campaign worker" story. Your pleas for reason were admirable, as was Ann's post casting doubt on the story. I will admit, however, that I laughed a lot at Simon's hysterical raving. And it was even funnier seeing him come back today speaking in Latin to justify his hysterical overreaction.

"Wouldn't that be unfair and in fact what you accused Mr. Packer of doing?"

I had read the sentence that had my name it it after seeing a Google alert. YOU emailed me to point out your work, and I responded to you by email based on the one sentence I had read. Then you came over here to talk about yourself -- I get it, you do self-promotion like mad -- and I responded here.

It was never my idea to write about you on my blog, because I wasn't interested in reading what you had to say, since I could see from the sentence about me that you were being unfair. I'm not going to comb over what you said about everyone else, and I'm not going to write a post about you. I don't like you, and screw you.

The idea that I'm doing anything to you that is comparable to what Packer and you did to me is flat-out bullshit. But you are not interested in honesty. So pimp your posts to Sullivan and Packer and get your traffic. Good for you, you little prick.

I see your point, but I don't think you can separate the two. Packer's post was written with political motives, and Ann's situation drives home the fact that we are all subject to libel and slander if we dare step outside of the new liberal groupthink that is coming to dominate our media.

Ann didn't even say what Packer claims she did, but there is enough of a grey area surround the intent of her actual words that you see the lefty commenters making hay about it nonetheless.

And, to Trooper, I nearly lost a toe from frostbite attending the NFC Championship game last year, so a pox on the Giants for not rolling over, and on Favre for not giving the job to Rodgers earlier.

The New Yorker - Moyers comparison is goofy. The New Yorker isn't anywhere near as tendentious as Moyers (or Harpers, The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, NY Review of Books, etc. etc.) I'm not defending Packer's post, but slamming The New Yorker is lame.

If you had not written a big headline with a giant picture of Obama's ear, screaming "Obama wore an earpiece that was clearly visible," no one could accuse you of pushing the theory that Obama wore an earpiece. But you did write that post, and you have to live with the consequences.

I don't mind people attacking me for doing that post itself, which was done at the end of a long session of live-blogging. But what angers me are these broad statements about how insular and narrow-minded I've been, when I have spent the last year (and more) being incredibly balanced, to the point where my readers really didn't know which candidate I was going to vote for.

You know, I'm going to vote for Obama (94.67% chance), but these assholes make it a really distasteful exercise.

vbspurs said, Would that all men give women the benefit of the doubt, like Simon did.

Oh please. Please. What was on display was not Simon's chivalry, but his blind partisanship and bad judgement. His stupidity. Are you accusing Ann of indifference to women? Are you saying Palladian is incapable of chivalry? Why do you think so little of them? Isn't that an unfair reward for their superior judgement? Simon wanted a torpedo to the hull of the Obama campaign, and he was outraged when the story wasn't immediately picked up by every major news outlet in America.

Packer's post bugged me because he wrote as though the right-leaning blogs had lost their minds without a word about comparable insanity from Kos, or his "source" Sullivan, who has been a loon.

But I agree with Jack. Ann posted and (briefly maintained) the earpiece as a statement of fact, not a question posed to her audience, like "anyone else think this looks like a plastic earpiece?" and we would have all said no again. She didn't play it like that, so I think the indignance is a little misplaced. I can understand and sympathize with embarrassment, though.

Before dismissing the idea that Sen. Obama was wearing or does wear a hearing device, in less than 60 seconds on the net, I found many, many websites advertising CIC hearing aids. Go here.

They fit entirely inside the ear canal. They cost about $1,000. They're the size of a large seed or piece of corn. Probably sold by every audiologist.

So....could there be a radio receiver that size? Why not?

And, lo and behold, another five seconds on Google, and up come many in-the-ear-canal radio receivers...like here.

The mistake the Professor made, if she made one, was not to invest a few minutes research. Best thing to do would be to call two or three manufacturers of these gizmos and see what they think.

Heck, if I were running for President, I'd use a radio so I could be fed reminders and tips, and I'd be gobbling Provigil. Anything for an undetectable edge. Lifts in the shoes, hair dye, Wheaties, whatever.

But what angers me are these broad statements about how insular and narrow-minded I've been, when I have spent the last year (and more) being incredibly balanced, to the point where my readers really didn't know which candidate I was going to vote for.

Trying to claim understanding or latituge for Ann's post by claiming it was a live blog would be reasonable in reasonable times, but it it kind of ridiculous with what has been going on in the larger world.

Ann is not running for president.

and if what you say is true this makes speech codes pale in comparison.

WOW!!!!! And just when I was beginning to think that maybe I use too much foul language in my Althouse comments!

#1 - Fascinating - and a bit heartwarming - to see all political stripes of Althouse commenters rush together to Ann's defense.

Count me in. It was a crappy thing to do to include Ann out of context. But then again it's the "New Yorker". Which brings me to:

#2 - Ahhh, the New Yorker - am "important" magazine. Ann, this is the part Ann that troubles me. Why are you concerned that Ann Althouse look good in the "New Yorker"? Why do you consider it "important"?

Me thinks I smell a bit of elitism here. Which explains Ann's recent defense of Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Colin Powell, and others who many of us feel are honestly more concerned with their appearance and reputation among other elites than they are with their basic ethical and political principals.

Please Ann, when you have had a chance to calm down - and again, I agree that you were wronged - do tell us which other magazines are "important" enough that you don't want to be libeled therein.

Jack said..."And it was even funnier seeing him come back today speaking in Latin to justify his hysterical overreaction."

I think the only latin I used was the exceedingly common locution "ab initio." If you've not run across it before, you might want to try moving from the fourth grade shelf to the fifth.

Your username at BHTV is much more fitting - "twinswords." Be kind enough to call on one of them on your way out.

Speaking of latin:

Ann Althouse said..."[W]hat angers me are these broad statements about how insular and narrow-minded I've been, when I have spent the last year (and more) being incredibly balanced, to the point where my readers really didn't know which candidate I was going to vote for."

Now I feel like voting for McCain... and pushing the inside the ear transmitter theory...

The conservative community (which are not all Republicans, needless-to-say) would welcome you back, no questions asked.

I remember once defending you during a very similar anti-Althousiana situation.

"Poor Ann", I wrote.

I continued in this vein:

The only thing die-hard liberals cannot tolerate is apostasy, such as questioning the cause, and God forbid, leaving it. But as one gets more conservative as one ages, the Conservative movement is used to accepting new people into the fold.

Just think of it this way. If you vote for Obama in '08, you are GUARANTEED that your 2004 vote will be nullified. Kerry would most likely be Secretary of State, and in our living rooms nearly every night seeing as how Biden is betting the farm Obama will be tested within 6 months.

Is that what you really want? A weak President, unsure and badly advised?

I do believe the word loser should be capitalized here. It's being used in place of a name, as a proper noun.

Now, if you said, you loser, that would be a regular noun. But loser by itself, as a name, is Loser. This is a grammatical rule of name substitution. All those things, Douche Bag, ~ Nozzle, ~ Holster, etc., fall under this rule. Plus, it's more emphatic and funnier.

Oh, Messeur Jeorge Packier, it iz ze little boy in 'im, no? 'E likez to play ze game of chaaze. But I zee il est un auteur des livres. I will be sure to not buy un. 'E iz too stewpeed to reed.

I hate the New Yorker, have always hated the New Yorker and think it is one of the worst reads on the planet. Stuffy, old and unbearably pretentious. Apparently there are many right-wing blue-bloods commenting here. Normal people(even in cities) don't read the New Yorker. In New York one is more likely to read New York magazine(glossy and fun). Dessicated WASPS read the New Yorker. And 90 year old farts.

Are you all in your 90's? I'm only 40, and normal younger than 90 people don't read that!

I am waiting for someone at my office, it is almost 9 and I am ready to choke this scumbag when they come in the door. I will probably be arrested after I do.

In college (in the late 70's) a young lady friend (not a girlfriend) at same college wrote a fan letter to a Mr. George Peppard, and included a picture (headshot) of herself. A week later, she was so excited to show his handwritten response letter to her. 2 days later, a second letter. 2 weeks and 6 letters later, she was invited to come to see him do a reading on Melrose for a small theater. 4 of us accompanied her. He was gracious to all, but incredibly attentive to our friend who sent him the letter.

Long story short - they dated for a little over a year. He was around 50, she was 21.

I just turned 50. I bought the New Yorker because, as an 11 year old boy growing up in South Carolina, I was visited by my Aunt and Uncle from Manhattan, where he was the VP of Marketing in the 60's for Hanes. For my 11th birthday they gave me the book of all the New Yorker Cartoons published since the beginning of the magazine, at that time of course. I developed a taste for them - at least the ones I could "get". It just went on from there.

I just turned 50. I bought the New Yorker because, as an 11 year old boy growing up in South Carolina, I was visited by my Aunt and Uncle from Manhattan, where he was the VP of Marketing in the 60's for Hanes. For my 11th birthday they gave me the book of all the New Yorker Cartoons published since the beginning of the magazine, at that time of course. I developed a taste for them - at least the ones I could "get". It just went on from there.

I bet the book was beautiful. The covers are sometimes really fantastic, but I loathe the content. I prefer more downscale fare like Vanity Fair, although even that has become stale and tired.

integrity said..."I prefer more downscale fare like Vanity Fair, although even that has become stale and tired."

Much like the democratic party's perpetual menu of warmed over FDR-LBJ big government liberalism, hmm?

I don't know why you'd read something that was stale and tired - a fortiori if it agrees with you. I listen to NPR, and sometimes that's stale and tired, too, but at least it's presenting something I don't already agree with.

I agree that what Packer did was at the very least in poor taste, and beginning with Andrew Sullivan is never a good sign. However, I must say that Packer's book "Blood of the Liberals" is a good read, and I think it's odd that the same man could have done this.

Simon said... integrity said..."I prefer more downscale fare like Vanity Fair, although even that has become stale and tired."

Much like the democratic party's perpetual menu of warmed over FDR-LBJ big government liberalism, hmm?

I don't know why you'd read something that was stale and tired - a fortiori if it agrees with you. I listen to NPR, and sometimes that's stale and tired, too, but at least it's presenting something I don't already agree with.

James said... I agree that what Packer did was at the very least in poor taste, and beginning with Andrew Sullivan is never a good sign. However, I must say that Packer's book "Blood of the Liberals" is a good read, and I think it's odd that the same man could have done this.

I now think maybe he never came to the site and got the tip from Sullivan(whose stuff I like), who was retaliating against Ann for her cruel neutrality. I find it hard to believe he fingered Ann on his own. Very hard to believe a couple of hours later, especially if he wrote a book critical of liberals.

integrity, I'm 42, admittedly waspy but neither right wing, nor a blue-blood. Just finished a New Yorker piece on Zimbabwe, which I don't know - you think is something only people who still call it Rhodesia would care about?

Yeah, some stuff is really long and dull so I skip it. The Talk of the town political stuff, I usually skip also. But there is almost always something interesting I couldn't read elsewhere. Same with The Economist - there are only a few places where people take risks to do real reporting or where the story doesn't emerge only because there's been some big headline, & they suddenly remember entire continents they've ignored for years.

I have a couple 100% sincere questions for those who believe that some great injustice has occurred.

1) Do all agree that Althouse invented/created/originated this "story" because she had seen that nobody else was presenting it?

2) What's the big difference between pushing a story and inventing/creating/originating a story explicitly out of a concern that the story isn't being presented anywhere else?

3) Is the real problem that Althouse doesn't want the so-called elite snobs (NYer readers) or anyone else to lump her in with the other right wingers noted in the NYer piece?

Regarding question three; I can understand the concern. As a rule folks don't want to be misunderstood. And, it is true that Althouse isn't like the nutty right wing folks.

But, she did create this story precisely because she thought the absence of this story represented some sort of void in the blog world. In a very, very loose way she did push it. The important point is not the word "pushed." The important thing is that Althouse would have done the same thing if she thought McCain may have had an earpiece. And, the piece didn't express this, because the piece wasn't centered on everything Althouse has ever done, or may ever do.

IMHO, Althouse is bothered because she's been reduced to a footnote in a piece about hard core right wing folks. [I will note that she is spending a fair amount of effort making sure that Jon is aware of his own reduced status.]

And, she's upset because she didn't get a link. But, this is also tied to her minimal importance in the NYer piece. If she was more central to the piece she would have been more likely to get a link. And, it worth repeating that the piece did refer to Jon who did link to Althouse. If readers wanted to get to Althouse they could have done so with links, or they could have used the google.

And, speaking of Sully. He's always complaining that the Corner never links to him when they aim their fire directly and strongly at him (unlike the passing reference to Althouse in the NYer piece.)

I have to say, trying to remain a little above the fray, that if I'd suggested Obama was being fed comments during the debate I might have felt a bit like an idiot too ... which is how you feel now, and that's why you seem so angry. People like you are why people like Obama will be next President of the United States of America.

I don't watch scary movies. My imagination goes crazy. I have enough trouble without crazy imaginative intrusions on my warm and fluffy life.

I awoke this morning from a disturbing dream regarding demon channeling, epileptic attacks, and stolen cars.

The younger of my two brothers wanted to visit a woman in a house who was having a meeting. He likes to drive, so I let him. At the woman's house I was expected to read something from a small book. The reading presumably evoked something psychic. I'm cool with that. A portion of the book was ripped out limiting the portion available to read. This was odd, 1/2 a book ripped from out from the top. I examined how many pages were affected. I questioned this oddity. The woman said it was a printing problem and since she paid for it, she didn't want to discard the whole thing. I doubted her trustworthiness. Still couldn't read it. Straining to read, and still unable, I impatiently ripped open the curtains which had been shut and making the room dark. This flooded the room with light and disrupted the ambiance of the gathering. The woman complained harshly and bitterly that I ruined the channeling session. I beseeched all the the people at the gathering, "WHAT KIND OF ENTITY NEEDS DARKNESS TO BE CALLED FORTH? A BEING OF DARKNESS, THAT'S WHO!" The woman goes, "No! No! No! You've got it all wrong!" I go, "I do not. Com'on Jim, let's get out of here. This woman is evil" She glared at me menacingly. I pissed on her party, challenged her whole lifestyle. We gathered our things. It was then I realized we were shirtless, but I didn't recall removing my clothes. The woman, still glaring, turned our clothes inside out like she was shaking out whatever loose change would fall out. I grabbed them and left.

Still shirtless with my clothes bundled, outside the house we stepped down the concrete steps into the bright light of day. A man in the near distance was having a seizure and making noises of pain, the same sounds that came out of me when I broke my femur in real life. My brother went over to assist him. I wasn't bothered by that guy's pain, I knew the seizure would pass on its own, with or without my brother's assistance. Other people at the meeting were leaving too, and conversing about the disruption I just caused. They noticed their car had been mysteriously moved. I couldn't see our vehicle where we parked it, but I didn't know exactly which vehicle I was looking for. The missing car seemed less important and the man having the seizure seemed less important than the near escape of calling forth a dark demonic entity. I abruptly woke up, disturbed in a scary movie, Halloween sort of way.

i don t know about sir archy or even titusbut i am a 100 percent sorta brown bloodedamerican cockraoch born right herein cambridge mass if you want to countthat as america which i am sure some of you don tand i ve got to say i think that hatchet jobdone to professor a was terriblethat s the trouble with bloggingit s supposed to be easy and breezybut there are people who deconstruct everybreadcrumb that gets stuck under the letter rfor example that really happened and i couldn twrite a damn thing with r

railroad crossing look out for the carscan you spell it without any r s...

anyway soon people started to sayi broke my right front leg off and otherstupid theories and my blog went to helluntil tommy came back from campand fixed the keyboard

tommy is the boy whose computer i use

anyway tommy and i took the blog privateand maybe i ll start againbut this sure is a cautionary tale

i have a confession to maketommy subscribes to the new yorkeroh the shamehe s very bright and sophisticated for 12hell he s bright and sophisticated for 34so he started reading the new yorkerin the office of his fancy private schooland next thing he had to have a subscriptionmom and dad got him one for his birthday

i m glad that hit piece is only onlineas i would have to find and eat the pageif it were in the magazineso tommy wouldn t see itand while there are some magazineswith yummy casein coated glossy paperi only eat the new yorker as a last resort

when I have spent the last year (and more) being incredibly balanced, to the point where my readers really didn't know which candidate I was going to vote for.

You know, that's really a delusion on your part. You may have played around with the idea of voting for McCain at some point, but it was clear enough that you were always going to vote Obama. You got that little enthusiastic crush on him during the primary season, and I don't think that really changed.

Joe was playing football with his son in his own front yard. Obama approached him, and gave a bad answer to Joe's question about taxes. As a result, every negative aspect of Joe's life was broadcast to the nation.

And look, Clinton values are now back again, with Obama not even one foot in the WH. It turns out Joe's records were accessed illegally to destroy him publicly. Gee, who could have done that...behavior not seen since the Clinton's were in power.

I just can't wait for Democrat ethics to rule the country again and this time, unopposed.

Oh my God, I love you people so much. This really is the Best Election Evar.

I especially love how mean nasty people on the left might make you vote for the Republican. If ever there was an admission that it's all about who belongs to which tribe, that politics is about status and that nobody - even the people who claim to care - gives any inclination of a shit about policies, that's it. I might not vote for a presidential candidate because his supporters aren't my kind of people! Genius!

You guys are the best! I hope you keep on talking like this even after the election. It will be so amusing I might actually shit myself.

This post is a lot more rancid than what Packer wrote about you. If this was meant to be a rebuttal that's an epic fail. Your original accusation was ridiculous on its face, unnecessary, and you didn't take it back completely when you discovered you were wrong, either, you make statements designed to let it fester. So the whole thing appears to have been driven by a wish that it be true, as further witnessed by your conclusion that even if you didn't see what you saw, gee golly gosh, maybe it is true, anyway! I have only just discovered this issue and have read nothing else on your blog, but from your behaviour on this issue alone, it's pretty clear to me that Packer is correct.

Interestingly, I enlarged the picture of Ms. A on this blog and subjected it to Kerlian photography and I am almost certain that I saw a device implanted in her left frontal lobe. Could she be receiving instructions from somewhere? RNC? Alien mothership? I really have no way of knowing so you'll have to decide that for yourself. Mind you, I'm not pushing this story. Just telling you what my careful observations revealed. Yes, as a man of science, I asked myself should I post such a poorly supported assertion on a blog read by so many impressionable people? But then I followed her link to the context and saw the impeccable logic,"You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see."That one sentence helped me to throw off my hesitancy and to understand the problems of our legal system (if this is the logic being taught there), in one fell swoop.Just because there is no good evidence for my assertion doesn't mean I ought to examine the evidence before saying it's true!After all, I can always come back in 5 minutes and say "oops!" and that makes my brash, wrongheaded assertion about the implant I'm sure I see on the picture just fine. It isn't like anyone will run with my no-evidence evidence and not be back in 5 minutes for my mea culpa.So let's throw off the last vestiges of this logic, fact dominated liberal communist theory and run with whatever crazy thought comes to our mind! The liberals want to stop this kind of crazy superstitious thinking and we can't have that! You go Ms. A! (if that's what the implant tells you to do.)And let's defend this kind of thought by reference to others who've broken the rules of logic and civility because I'm sure Ms. A can tell us that the fact that others have committed murder is a reasonable defense as to why a defendant ought not to be held responsible for murder. Makes perfect sense.

OOPS! My bad! It turns out my Kerlian photography equiptment and my lack of experience in interpreting such images apparently led me to falsely conclude I saw a device in the authors head. Who could have known that ahead of time? Really! Not my fault for assuming I had expertise in the interpretation of such images! No, not arrogance, I'm sure in a courtroom Ms. A would establish an experts credentials in photographic image interpretation merely by asking if he or she were human. It's a common mistake to assume we are all experts in such a technical field.

Remember though as Ms. A taught us, just because the device I saw on the Kerlian photo wasn't there doesn't mean that there is no device in her head. And what could that little bit of logical fallacy be for but to give you permission to continue to believe my initial crazy assertion? It doesn't really matter that my initial assertion was baseless and bizarre because - It could happen!

I believe you can see how this post provides "context" for my previous post, so no one should accuse me of making wild unfounded assertions about Ms. A or you will obviously have substandard ethics and you may become the subject of her ire just as Packer did.

I have perfected, I believe, the Althousian defense but comments from the master are welcome! Others, with substandard ethics might say I should apologize for jumping to conclusions about her, but the master knows that a lack of evidence can still be evidence (in the minds of the superstitious). Therefore, if you really look at the context, I'm just a responsible commenter.

As for what you do on your blog, I don't bother to read it, and I didn't call it libel. I can't be bothered to read it, frankly. I think you're boring, but you do apparently appeal to people in your "self-isolating political subculture gone rancid." Good for you. Asshole.

Self-important much?

It's commendable you retracted your erroneous report after posting it. I think the point you're missing in your bluster, however, is that some basic restraint and fact-checking would have nixed your zeal to ever have posted it in the first place.

You seem very controlling on how you spend your time -- judging from the comment I've cited above. So, why not suspend wasting time attacking the messenger -- who is ultimately correct when he said you led with something ridiculous and false -- and instead devote some time re-establishing your credibility and explaining to your readers why you won't be so apt to put your foot in it again.

Plenty of Ann's readership raked her over the coals for the piece. It was retracted within minutes of first being posted, but Ann had the integrity to not try to pretend she never posted it.

This is a blog, not a deeply researched, edited and fact-checked set of political essays. It's as if we were all watching TV together and she said, "OMG! Is Obama wearing an earpiece? I think he is, look at that! Oh. Wait, never mind."

That's the level of significance. She took some razzing for it. She pointed out that it's not that outrageous an idea (and I think others pointed out the speculation over Bush a few years earlier), and there was some discussion about that.

That's the way things work here. If you don't like it, fine, but nobody should be making half-assed claims about a "cocoon". There are people all over the political spectrum here, and as the last few weeks in particular have shown, Ann is excoriated by both sides.

You're even bulshitting here by saying that Ann is objecting to someone telling her to exercise some restraint, when in fact, she's objecting to the idea that she "pushed" a story that was up for five minutes, and that she's somehow politically isolated.

Both ideas are stupid and wrong, and just as poorly researched as the "ear piece" bit, with the bonus that you two really are pushing it and doubtless will never apologize.

Sounds like you're partially upset at being tied to "conservative anti-Obama blogging" but, considering that anyone to the right--even tangentially--of Stalin is considered "conservative" these days, that's a probably a badge of honor. Ignore the idiot.

Jon Swift said..."Isn't it a wee bit hypocritical, Ms. Althouse, to complain of Mr. Packer's not linking to you, and then to refer to me and my piece and not link to me or even name me?"

No, as already explained. I never wanted to write about your post, which I haven't even read. I have a problem with Packer, and I don't want to talk about you. You want attention, and you come over here and beg for it. I'm not going to be played like that. The day I write a front page post insulting you by name -- not that I know your real name, but even your pseudonym -- and I discuss things that you did, I will link to the thing I'm talking about.

I have written over 13,000 posts on this blog, and your name does not appear in a single one.

It's funny that you're so incensed over this, Ms. Althouse. I mean, here it is, a couple days later, and you're still all up in arms about a post you haven't even read!

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Also, I'm quite sure that in your head, you see yourself as "neutral", but really, think about your fellow travellers. They're all right-wing nutjob blogs. Given that you haven't even read Jon Swift's original post, it seems to me that what you're more angry about is being lumped in with the dead-ender right-wing blogosphere, which even you can see is earning it's doctorate in barrel-scraping these days.